Case Problem:
Clarence Trosper worked for Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. For the first four years of his employment, Trosper operated sanding and sawing equipment inside the plant. Eventually, he was assigned to work outdoors, removing heavy boards by hand rapidly and continuously from a conveyor belt. After removing them from the belt, Trosper would sort the boards and then stack them according to grade. After being reassigned, Trosper began to experience an intense pain in the base of his hands near his thumbs. He reported the pain to his supervisor and received an injection. The pain worsened Trosper asked to be moved back inside the plant and the employer agreed. Several years passed during which Trosper experienced little to no pain. Then, in 2001, Trosper began working in a position that required him to lift 45- to 70-pound buckets to shoulder level in order to pour chemicals into a hopper. The pain returned. Trosper reported the pain to a supervisor and eventually went to see a doctor. Trosper was diagnosed with carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. The diagnosis ultimately led to surgery on both of Trosper’s hands. A doctor later determined that given the nature of the injury, it was likely that Trosper’s injuries were preexisting and had been aggravated by the type of work he was assigned. At trial, numerous doctors testified but disagreed about whether the injury was preexisting. The trial court awarded partial worker’s compensation benefits. The Special Worker’s Compensation Appeals Panel concluded that the injury was not caused or aggravated by the work performed for the defendant. Trosper filed a request for a full court review that was later heard by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. How do you believe the court ruled? What reasons do you think the court used to justify its decision? Trosper v. Armstrong Wood Products, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 598 (Tenn. 2008).
Your answer must be, typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.